Blood Consumption

Jonaitis · Apr 7, 2019

Where do you stand on the issue of Genesis 9:4? Does it still apply to the Christian?

It seems that if we are in agreement that a day of rest (Genesis 2:3) is still applicable today, then the Noahic commandments (Genesis 9:4-7) still apply.

My defense is that it still applies since 1) it is the only rule annexed to the consumption to meat, which God freely gave us as a gift, 2) it was commanded through Noah and all of his descendants, and not only through Moses and all of Israel, 3), it precedes the dating of the Old Covenant, 4) it is connected with the concept of an atonement ("for life is in the blood"), and to treat it as common is to treat the idea of blood sacrifice as less significant, which plays an important role in the death of Christ.

I figure that if this rule was handed down to us in relation to our freedom to eat meat, then this must still be in effect as long as meat consumption exists.

By the way, I've heard many times before that the blood is drained at the butcher shop before it is sold in the stores, so the red color in steak for an example does not count in this context (and I've heard before it is the dye color).

Extra credit: do you believe capital punishment for murder and/or human flourishing in Genesis 9:5-7 is still in effect?

timewerx · Apr 7, 2019

Jonaitis said:
1) it is the only rule annexed to the consumption to meat, which God freely gave us as a gift

Consumption of meat is NOT a gift.

Before the Adam and Eve sinned, it is only the fruits of trees are given for our consumption.

Consumption of mean is likely to be one of the consequences of man eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

HTacianas · Apr 7, 2019

Jonaitis said:
Where do you stand on the issue of Genesis 9:4? Does it still apply to the Christian?

It seems that if we are in agreement that a day of rest (Genesis 2:3) is still applicable today, then the Noahic commandments (Genesis 9:4-7) still apply.

My defense is that it still applies since 1) it is the only rule annexed to the consumption to meat, which God freely gave us as a gift, 2) it was commanded through Noah and all of his descendants, and not only through Moses and all of Israel, 3), it precedes the dating of the Old Covenant, 4) it is connected with the concept of an atonement ("for life is in the blood"), and to treat it as common is to treat the idea of blood sacrifice as less significant, which plays an important role in the death of Christ.

I figure that if this rule was handed down to us in relation to our freedom to eat meat, then this must still be in effect as long as meat consumption exists.

By the way, I've heard many times before that the blood is drained at the butcher shop before it is sold in the stores, so the red color in steak for an example does not count in this context (and I've heard before it is the dye color).

Extra credit: do you believe capital punishment for murder and/or human flourishing in Genesis 9:5-7 is still in effect?

Consuming the blood of an animal is prohibited within Christianity:

Act 21:25 - As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

That "the life is in the blood" is the foundation of the Eucharist:

Jhn 6:56 - “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

We consume the blood of Christ so that we may have life in us.

1Co 10:16 - The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?

Monk Brendan · Apr 7, 2019

Jonaitis said:
Extra credit: do you believe capital punishment for murder and/or human flourishing in Genesis 9:5-7 is still in effect?

While Jesus did not abolish capital punishment, He DID give the qualifications for the executioners in John 8.

What is "human flourishing"?

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Apr 7, 2019

Jonaitis said:
Where do you stand on the issue of Genesis 9:4? Does it still apply to the Christian?

It seems that if we are in agreement that a day of rest (Genesis 2:3) is still applicable today, then the Noahic commandments (Genesis 9:4-7) still apply.

My defense is that it still applies since 1) it is the only rule annexed to the consumption to meat, which God freely gave us as a gift, 2) it was commanded through Noah and all of his descendants, and not only through Moses and all of Israel, 3), it precedes the dating of the Old Covenant, 4) it is connected with the concept of an atonement ("for life is in the blood"), and to treat it as common is to treat the idea of blood sacrifice as less significant, which plays an important role in the death of Christ.

I figure that if this rule was handed down to us in relation to our freedom to eat meat, then this must still be in effect as long as meat consumption exists.

By the way, I've heard many times before that the blood is drained at the butcher shop before it is sold in the stores, so the red color in steak for an example does not count in this context (and I've heard before it is the dye color).

Extra credit: do you believe capital punishment for murder and/or human flourishing in Genesis 9:5-7 is still in effect?

Acts 10:14-15
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

devin553344 · Apr 7, 2019

Interestingly along those lines, we went from seed and fruit to meat and burnt offerings, and then Jesus gave bread and wine as body and blood of the Christ. So I think that's where we're at

Carl Emerson · Apr 8, 2019

Can I take a different tack...

Act 21:25 - As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

When word came back from Jerusalem regarding matters of critical obedience there was a common thread in all three - All were warnings against becoming internally contaminated spiritually.

Eating food offered to Idols involves internally consuming what has been ritually dedicated to a demonic spirit and the food is no longer spiritually neutral.

The blood is the life carrier and there was a practice to drink the blood of animals while still warm to hopefully imbibe the animal spirit.

Fornication has the same result as we become one flesh in rebellion we become spiritually contaminated internally.

So that is why these three practices were expressly forbidden. The result was the same in each case and seriously compromised believers spirituality.

Blessings,

Carl Emerson.

The Righterzpen · Apr 8, 2019

The command to not

Carl Emerson said:
Can I take a different tack...

Act 21:25 - As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

When word came back from Jerusalem regarding matters of critical obedience there was a common thread in all three - All were warnings against becoming internally contaminated spiritually.

Eating food offered to Idols involves internally consuming what has been ritually dedicated to a demonic spirit and the food is no longer spiritually neutral.

The blood is the life carrier and there was a practice to drink the blood of animals while still warm to hopefully imbibe the animal spirit.

Fornication has the same result as we become one flesh in rebellion we become spiritually contaminated internally.

So that is why these three practices were expressly forbidden. The result was the same in each case and seriously compromised believers spirituality.

Blessings,

Carl Emerson.

I think Carl here is spot on with the "consuming blood".

This isn't talking about how rare your steak is. There will always be a certain amount of blood in "red" meat. Now in the OT there were commands about not eating meat raw. Which even today, isn't recommended.

I looked up the Hebrew in this verse. There's a couple of interesting things in it. First off, the word "flesh" comes from a root word "to be of glad tidings". So "that which is of glad tidings" or "body of glad tidings". Also used to describe humans. The next phrase "the life there of" which is sometimes translated as "soul" sometimes translated as "breath". Obviously the organism is still alive. "which is the blood there of". "The life is in the blood." The blood is still in the animal. "Shall you not eat" (also translated "devour").

So the idea of slaughtering an animal and devouring it on the spot for the belief that doing so will enhance your own life is what that passage in Genesis is talking about.

Now over to the NT. Obviously this applies to the blood of the animal. Yet, I also suspect that "meat sacrificed to idols" had application to Jewish animal sacrifices post resurrection. If you claim to believe in the one who fulfilled this system of law; why return to it? There was lots of admonition about that, because at that point, in a very real way, those sacrifices were idolatry.

Now does this mean we can't eat Kosher meat (or Halal meat) or what ever - no. If you're not participating in the ritual the meat is slaughtered for thus intent; but only meat prepared for human consumption using certain types of "religious principles" - that is not violating anything.

Now "strangulation" again is used in Satanic ritual because it's believed that practice will enhance the "health" of the one consuming the meat. Strangulation (as opposed to slitting the throat or shocking the brain - as to how industry slaughters large animals today) releases stress hormones into the blood and consuming blood / meat filled with these stress hormones (adrenochrome - which is oxidized adrenaline) is suppose to restore youth and vigor. That is part of a Satanic ritual that is still practiced today and thus why I believe Paul includes this in "meat sacrificed to idols, blood, strangulation....".

And obviously, lastly; fornication has all sorts of implications on the soul, if not only possible / probable consequences of contracting disease in the body.

So that is my understanding of this. It has to do with belief systems about consuming blood or meat killed in a certain way for idolatrous purposes.

twin1954 · Apr 8, 2019

I don’t take the Reformed stance on the Sabbath and the Law. I do though want to comment on these things later when I have more time.

For those who are not Calvinist, remember you are a welcome guest here but that you are not allowed to teach here. I don’t think anyone here would object too much if you qualified your post posts by saying that this is the teaching of your particular church. Just be careful that you don’t try to teach against Calvinism or Reformed doctrines.

Rubiks · Apr 8, 2019

Consumption of blood is explicitly forbidden in Acts 15:29.

Jonaitis · Apr 8, 2019

timewerx said:
Consumption of meat is NOT a gift.

Before the Adam and Eve sinned, it is only the fruits of trees are given for our consumption.

Consumption of mean is likely to be one of the consequences of man eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

Do you believe we should still be vegetarians then?

No Username Found said:
Acts 10:14-15
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

How does this relate to blood?

Carl Emerson said:
Can I take a different tack...

Act 21:25 - As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

When word came back from Jerusalem regarding matters of critical obedience there was a common thread in all three - All were warnings against becoming internally contaminated spiritually.

Eating food offered to Idols involves internally consuming what has been ritually dedicated to a demonic spirit and the food is no longer spiritually neutral.

The blood is the life carrier and there was a practice to drink the blood of animals while still warm to hopefully imbibe the animal spirit.

Fornication has the same result as we become one flesh in rebellion we become spiritually contaminated internally.

So that is why these three practices were expressly forbidden. The result was the same in each case and seriously compromised believers spirituality.

Blessings,

Carl Emerson.

This passage is an interesting take, thanks for sharing.

The Righterzpen said:
The command to not

I think Carl here is spot on with the "consuming blood".

This isn't talking about how rare your steak is. There will always be a certain amount of blood in "red" meat. Now in the OT there were commands about not eating meat raw. Which even today, isn't recommended.

I looked up the Hebrew in this verse. There's a couple of interesting things in it. First off, the word "flesh" comes from a root word "to be of glad tidings". So "that which is of glad tidings" or "body of glad tidings". Also used to describe humans. The next phrase "the life there of" which is sometimes translated as "soul" sometimes translated as "breath". Obviously the organism is still alive. "which is the blood there of". "The life is in the blood." The blood is still in the animal. "Shall you not eat" (also translated "devour").

So the idea of slaughtering an animal and devouring it on the spot for the belief that doing so will enhance your own life is what that passage in Genesis is talking about.

Now over to the NT. Obviously this applies to the blood of the animal. Yet, I also suspect that "meat sacrificed to idols" had application to Jewish animal sacrifices post resurrection. If you claim to believe in the one who fulfilled this system of law; why return to it? There was lots of admonition about that, because at that point, in a very real way, those sacrifices were idolatry.

Now does this mean we can't eat Kosher meat (or Halal meat) or what ever - no. If you're not participating in the ritual the meat is slaughtered for thus intent; but only meat prepared for human consumption using certain types of "religious principles" - that is not violating anything.

Now "strangulation" again is used in Satanic ritual because it's believed that practice will enhance the "health" of the one consuming the meat. Strangulation (as opposed to slitting the throat or shocking the brain - as to how industry slaughters large animals today) releases stress hormones into the blood and consuming blood / meat filled with these stress hormones (adrenochrome - which is oxidized adrenaline) is suppose to restore youth and vigor. That is part of a Satanic ritual that is still practiced today and thus why I believe Paul includes this in "meat sacrificed to idols, blood, strangulation....".

And obviously, lastly; fornication has all sorts of implications on the soul, if not only possible / probable consequences of contracting disease in the body.

So that is my understanding of this. It has to do with belief systems about consuming blood or meat killed in a certain way for idolatrous purposes.

Interesting take as well.

The Righterzpen · Apr 8, 2019

No Username Found said:
Acts 10:14-15
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Jonaitis said:
How does this relate to blood?

I took this to mean that once Christ has fulfilled the law; this is to mean that implications in the OT dietary laws are no longer applicable. Which technically is true - even going back to Genesis.

This is why I think whether or not God considers an outward act "sin" is dependent on motivation. So something intentionally done as part of idolatrous practice is certainly outside of morally lawful in God's eyes.

Yet, for example; there as a plane crash of some sports team back in the 70's I think it was. The plane crashed in a rocky mountainous region where they had no food, so to survive they ate the dead. Now could I bring myself to eat another human being given those types of circumstances; when I certainly would not be eating people in my every day life? I don't know? But that certainly is an example of motivation driving behavior and circumstance, where each individual can only bear what his own conscious will allow of him.

Jonaitis · Apr 8, 2019

The Righterzpen said:
I took this to mean that once Christ has fulfilled the law; this is to mean that implications in the OT dietary laws are no longer applicable. Which technically is true - even going back to Genesis.

This is why I think whether or not God considers an outward act "sin" is dependent on motivation. So something intentionally done as part of idolatrous practice is certainly outside of morally lawful in God's eyes.

Yet, for example; there as a plane crash of some sports team back in the 70's I think it was. The plane crashed in a rocky mountainous region where they had no food, so to survive they ate the dead. Now could I bring myself to eat another human being given those types of circumstances; when I certainly would not be eating people in my every day life? I don't know? But that certainly is an example of motivation driving behavior and circumstance, where each individual can only bear what his own conscious will allow of him.

Well, there was no pagan in Noah's day, rather it was commanded on account of the fact that "life is in the blood." I believe this is important for why this was prohibited. Blood is connected to the idea of an "atonement."

The other reason why I don't see how this relates to the dietary laws of Israel is that it is connected to the actual eating of meat. When God allowed us to consume meat, he annexed a rule to it. In saying that it is now clean, we must consistently say meat is no longer eatable.

Ttalkkugjil · Apr 8, 2019

A restriction is added to flesh's eating, namely, that excluding flesh as food while the living blood was still coursing through the veins. This provision was added to prevent people's degeneration to savagery.

The Righterzpen · Apr 8, 2019

Jonaitis said:
Well, there was no pagan in Noah's day, rather it was commanded on account of the fact that "life is in the blood." I believe this is important for why this was prohibited. Blood is connected to the idea of an "atonement."

The other reason why I don't see how this relates to the dietary laws of Israel is that it is connected to the actual eating of meat. When God allowed us to consume meat, he annexed a rule to it. In saying that it is now clean, we must consistently say meat is no longer eatable.

Not sure why you're saying that because something is "clean" it is no longer edible?

If you look at what Genesis is saying. It says: "I give you everything that moves as meat...." and then goes on to talk about "life and blood". When you get to the Mosaic law though, now there are things that are forbidden to eat, like pigs and camels and crayfish. No lobster or clam's casino for you! When previously in Genesis it was "every thing that moved". (Maybe you can argue a clam doesn't "move" - LOL)

So it isn't until you get to Moses that you have a division between what is "clean" and "unclean". And remember it was the "clean" things they could eat, not the "unclean".

So when God says to Peter - don't call anything impure of what God has made clean - the vision was presented to Peter as relating to what he could eat as a Jew; obviously the greater implication has to do with the gospel going to gentiles.

Yet this is also a verse used to justify not following dietary laws. So yes, that does apply to blood and what is consumed in the general sense. Now can we consume blood? Yes we do. When ever you have a rare steak, you are consuming blood.

Yet as I mentioned before, I think the prohibition had more to do with consuming blood or an animal's flesh before it may actually even be technically dead, because of the belief that somehow gave you better health. Did people in Noah's day do that? Why do you think the earth was destroyed? If it was destroyed for their wickedness; one would assume that would have been included.

So were there pagans in Noah's day? Yes there were.

Your point about blood being connected to atonement though. I think you are right on that one. Obviously the connection is there - but because blood is connected to atonement, does that mean you are no longer allowed to eat animal protein?

The term "meat" in most contests in the NT can be referring to anything you eat vegetarian or not.

1 Corinthians 8:
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Now yes, this could apply to a pagan temple, but also could apply to the temple in Jerusalem! So if I eat animal products and this offends my weaker brother; (be they Jewish sacrifices or pagan sacrifices. Whereas I could see a gentile believer who's being confronted with a Jew who's still participating in animal sacrifices saying - wait a minute - if I'm suppose to stay out of the temple to Zeus; what about him?) than I be a vegetarian. For example, I have friends in Alcoholics Anonymous. When they come over to my house, I don't break out the wine and beer. That doesn't mean that I don't drink it myself, or with other friends when they are not around.

So how does that apply to atonement if "the life is in the blood"? Either all animal protein is clean or it is all prohibited.

Hebrews 9:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Apr 8, 2019

Jonaitis said:
How does this relate to blood?

The intent of the passage was to declare that the days of Jews isolating themselves from the Gentiles were over. The passage is referring to Gentiles, who were once considered to be unclean, to be now clean. Peter was then commanded to bring the gospel to the Gentiles and bridge the gap that the Law created. Therefore, it means all the laws that were intended to separate the Jews from the Gentiles, to include food laws, were no longer necessary because God had made what was considered "unclean" to be "clean". This is why we can now eat shellfish and pork. So now you don't have to feel guilty about eating bacon, shrimp, catfish, or even blood sausage....yummy.

Jonaitis · Apr 8, 2019

No Username Found said:
The intent of the passage was to declare that the days of Jews isolating themselves from the Gentiles were over. The passage is referring to Gentiles, who were once considered to be unclean, to be now clean. Peter was then commanded to bring the gospel to the Gentiles and bridge the gap that the Law created. Therefore, it means all the laws that were intended to separate the Jews from the Gentiles, to include food laws, were no longer necessary because God had made what was considered "unclean" to be "clean". This is why we can now eat shellfish and pork. So now you don't have to feel guilty about eating bacon, shrimp, catfish, or even blood sausage....yummy.

But how does this relate to eating blood? Genesis 9:4 was before Jews and the Law of Moses, it was before the separation of Gentiles from Israel. This was commanded to Noah and all of his descendants. The dietary laws of Israel came later...

JackRT · Apr 8, 2019

In the ancient Mideast and Africa there was a feast in which an animal, usually a bullock, was securely trussed and the flesh was cut from the living animal. I believe that this is the practice that is spoken against in the Genesis passage.

timewerx · Apr 8, 2019

Jonaitis said:
Do you believe we should still be vegetarians then?

You can eat meat if you want. But to be vegetarian is better.

There are problems with consumption of meat. Even animal you hunted in the forest and cooked and ate can be loaded with the natural hormones of the animal. It affects the physical development of the body and more importantly, one's behavior / personality.

Certain DNA fragments of the animal you ate also behave like mutagenic virus. It could "jump" from an animal to the person who ate it. Behavior modifying and even DNA-mutating stuff are found in meat.... Even meat from an animal you hunted in a forest. Not counting parasites that could also modify behavior and even possibly affect DNA in half-cooked meat....

And speaking of meat-driven mutations, think cancer. Cancers originate from mutated cells in the body. Instead of counting on modern medical technology to save you from cancer, it's better to avoid catching cancer in the first place.

The longest living groups of people on this planet subsist on mostly plant diet. They also manage to avoid disease, cancers, other ailments even without depending on modern medicine.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Apr 8, 2019

Jonaitis said:
But how does this relate to eating blood? Genesis 9:4 was before Jews and the Law of Moses, it was before the separation of Gentiles from Israel. This was commanded to Noah and all of his descendants. The dietary laws of Israel came later...

Source: GotQuestions.org
What does the Bible say about eating/drinking blood?
This prohibition was most likely a ban on eating raw blood (i.e., uncooked meat). For the first time, animals were an allowable food source, and God was making sure that Noah did not eat them raw. A Jewish Targum comments on this verse: "But the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat."

Later, the prohibition of Genesis 9:4 is iterated in the Law of Moses. Leviticus 17:14 gives the reason behind command: “For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life.”

It’s important to understand that New Testament believers in Christ have freedom from the Law, and we are to “stand firm” in that liberty (Galatians 5:1). We are not under the Law but under grace. “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink” (Colossians 2:16). So, eating a rare steak, blood sausage, blood pancakes, blood soup, or blood tofu may not be palatable to all Christians, but it is allowable.

There is another passage to consider. In Acts 15, a question arose in the early church concerning what was necessary for salvation. Specifically, did a Gentile need to be circumcised in order to be saved (verse 1)? The issue came up in the church in Syrian Antioch, which had a mixture of Jewish and Gentile converts. To address this important issue, the leaders of the church met in Jerusalem for the very first church council. They concluded that, no, Gentiles did not need to follow Mosaic Law; circumcision is not part of salvation (verse 19). However, in verse 29, the leaders compose a letter with these instructions for the Gentiles in Antioch: “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” At this point, we must keep the context foremost in our minds. These four commands from Jerusalem to Antioch all dealt with pagan practices associated with idolatry. Most, if not all, of the Gentile converts in Antioch were saved out of paganism. The church leaders were exhorting the new Gentile believers to make a clean break from their old lifestyles and not offend their Jewish brothers and sisters in the church. The instructions were not intended to guarantee salvation but to promote peace within the early church.

Later, Paul dealt with the same issue. It is perfectly all right to eat meat offered to idols, he says. “Nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14). But if eating that meat causes a brother in Christ to violate his conscience, Paul “will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall” (1 Corinthians 8:13). This was the same concern the Jerusalem leaders had in Acts 15: if the Gentile believers ate meat with the blood in it, the Jewish believers might be tempted to violate their conscience and join them in the feast. One’s conscience is a sacred thing, and we dare not act against it (see 1 Corinthians 8:7-12 and Romans 14:5).

In short, ordering your steak rare or well done is a matter of conscience and of taste. What enters the mouth does not make us unclean (see Matthew 15:17-18). Eating black pudding may not appeal to everyone, but it is not a sin. We live under grace. We have liberty in Christ. Others may have different convictions about food and drink, and in that case we voluntarily limit our freedom in order to better serve them and God. “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Romans 14:19).

Blood Consumption

Should We Still Apply Genesis 9:4?

Yes

No

Not Sure

Soli Deo Gloria

the village i--o--t--

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I believe in the Resurrection

Well-Known Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Baptist by the Bible

proud libtard

Soli Deo Gloria

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Soli Deo Gloria

Social Pastor

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

the village i--o--t--

Well-Known Member

Similar threads